Re: [ldapext] Revive ldapext WG?
Clément OUDOT <clem.oudot@gmail.com> Fri, 26 September 2014 12:51 UTC
Return-Path: <clem.oudot@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9767D1A1B97 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 05:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lL6oVqB0PUsM for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 05:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 666CC1A1BFF for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 05:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id q5so11434924wiv.10 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 05:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=WLTU9uSUpLWiXwctKhAT4Tz/GWwJEh5qXtsCuYjldT4=; b=ceQT6EsoS7lbLaOldgIOSiKtJWKMcQ+l5x14gxWj2zqw6i1ffGmcH9xd3MPqJYzCoC keleBijoqXEu1mDZnspiqDbdbhzMkGqWK/u0/z8sGVangJRBle3S8V6FRjUXPWlFSN6d vVgJLk44FNsgNbjMD5xbzKEc8AHoFSZXq8xHCYwo87LtClaztedAQgxQUTzqhHpUwPpo chEbPpwP71s0EOVgJ/Fd8Ke+TnBfd+RbYFemrC5IXsCSmgPuFp+7VDoJ42bQVDunrtr3 1Ea2DTwnZOqSaAKNRjLxp9u7HWpcv3wSBF9JMVVd67ogHl/KpVyobkuLyGPxBv1MALT1 FQEA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.237.164 with SMTP id vd4mr23198709wjc.46.1411735900920; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 05:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.8.201 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 05:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <54255AC1.8040705@stroeder.com>
References: <54255AC1.8040705@stroeder.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:51:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK_oV490Ck1R21cQje=zaE8+0jbygjaCSUrkM=qSwX74Ynj2Nw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Clément OUDOT <clem.oudot@gmail.com>
To: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01494d0ae422c40503f76069"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/FCGk96kd8sig5F62fGSCL_kKu-4
Cc: ldapext <ldapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] Revive ldapext WG?
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ldapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:ldapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:51:43 -0000
2014-09-26 14:23 GMT+02:00 Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>: > HI! > > AFAICS independent draft submissions can only reach informational or > experimental status. > > But I think it should be possible to reach standard status for some > important > drafts (like ppolicy draft as discussed at LDAPcon 2013). > > What do you think about it? > Should IETF WG ldapext should be revived? > Hi Michael, 100% agree with you, I think we need to convert some important drafts into RFC. I am willing to help, as far as I can of course. Clément.
- [ldapext] Revive ldapext WG? Michael Ströder
- Re: [ldapext] Revive ldapext WG? Clément OUDOT
- Re: [ldapext] Revive ldapext WG? Charlie